With how we know tech companies are working with the government, I'd be curious if simply adding 5-10 guns and ammo to an online shopping cart, but never purchasing would draw attention.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

FTAG 2000 said:

---

I think there's a rule that if you buy more than five firearms in 48 hours you could get a visit from ATF. this guy bought seven.

Not a fan of the ATF but it's understandable why he got visited.

---

If it's a rule, then the rule should stipulate that a judge be notified to authorize a warrant for the search and confirmation. The guy passed the NICS background check, twice in this case it would seem, so beyond he bought more than some arbitrary limit during some arbitrary time period, what provides the basis for such a heavy handed visit as displayed in this video? This isn't Andy Taylor knocking on the door with Barney Fife watching his back, these are guys in vests and clearly operating as if the guy is a suspected criminal simply because he engaged in a lawful activity.

---

In their defense, they can't know if his activity is lawful or not before they actually talk to him. Until he opens the door, he could be a violent meth dealer for all they know.

Now, they should have a warrant, and simply buying a bunch of guns should not be grounds for said warrant, but they do have the right to ask without said warrant and be prepared for unknown individuals while asking.

---

I get why they have assumed the posture witnessed in the video, but up to this point they seem to have no evidence of his engaging in wrong doing other than lawfully purchasing a number of firearms. I suppose one could compare this to someone buying 5 boxes of Sudafed in a 48-hour period, but if the guy has no priors (unless something about the traffic stop indicated additional caution), and passed NICS, that should count for something. While caution is a good thing, there may be something about coming in heavy that also invites a more confrontational and adversarial interaction that should be considered.

Dawnguard said:

---

MousepadMarauder said:

---

I haven't read the entire thread and don't know the backstory, but just wanted to enter this as a possible explanation:

A gun gets used in the commission of a crime. The gun gets traced back as sold by the manufacturer to/through a certain FFL, these guys show up at his shop and demand to inspect his records (he has to comply). In inspecting his records, they notice this gun was sold to Person A, along with a whole host of other guns. Person A is not an FFL but is apparently selling guns including selling guns to original criminal actor. This is a violation of Federal Law, selling for business without a license. ATF thinks FFL is in violation of Federal Law for knowingly transferring guns which he had reason to know were going to be sold (straw purchase or otherwise). In looking at FFL's records they also notice Person B (Ring Camera Guy) is acquiring voluminous weapons as well. In order to build case against FFL and/or Person A, ATF goes to talk to all folks who bought multiple firearms through FFL.

Agreed that I don't want ATF showing up at my door asking about my guns, but I think there are scenarios where this might happen as a result of good law enforcement activity.

---

And if this was the case, getting a warrant would make a lot more sense than a knock and talk for ensuring that all of the evidence was collected correctly and avoiding additional misunderstandings while also making it appear as legitimate instead of bullying.

---

It's easier and quicker to just ask first. If your neighbor of blocking your driveway, you could just call the cops and a tow truck, or you could walk over and ask them to move first. If you ask, it might get resolved quicker. If they say no, you can always do things the hard way.

Now, these guys should leave the moment the owner tells them no instead of trying to coerce compliance, but there's really nothing wrong with asking before going the warrant route.

That said, I really don't have a high opinion of cops in general. I'm not making excuses for anything they have done here or elsewhere, and I've posted many, many times about my belief they should be held far more accountable. However, they have a job to do, and like anyone else I would hope they try the easiest and last intrusive option first, because what's worse than cops showing up at your house without a warrant and asking to verify possession of a few weapons is cops breaking down your door at 3am with, and under the protection of, a warrant to search for said weapons.

Also, they don't have enough probable cause to get a warrant to knock down Ring Camera Guy's door. They are just in the evidence gathering phase (potentially) gathering evidence against FFL and/or Person A. They are trying to establish a case that FFL is looking the other way and not filing the appropriate forms for unlicensed dealers to acquire firearms. If FFL has multiple (say 10) people who regularly use his services to acquire a large number of firearms and components, but FFL is not reporting them correctly, and evidence that at least some of those firearms are being sold to criminal actors by some of these 10 folks, then I think they have a reasonable basis to investigate to determine if FFL is the "go-to" guy for these unlicensed folks to use to buy guns for their operations. If the other of these10 folks all have all of these guns in their hands, then the case is weak.

Again, this is all pure conjecture and speculation. I have no idea about these specific facts.

Edit to Add:

I think the gun control crowd knows they will never be able to disarm American citizens (Thanks 2A) but if they can apply enough pressure (civil suits, criminal charges, etc.) against FFLs, then all of the FFLs will get out of the business. No FFLs and a ban on private sales = no legal firearms transactions occurring. Any sale would be unauthorized and thus they would be able to seize any such weapons. THAT is how they disarm the citizens.

oldyeller said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

FTAG 2000 said:

---

I think there's a rule that if you buy more than five firearms in 48 hours you could get a visit from ATF. this guy bought seven.

Not a fan of the ATF but it's understandable why he got visited.

---

If it's a rule, then the rule should stipulate that a judge be notified to authorize a warrant for the search and confirmation. The guy passed the NICS background check, twice in this case it would seem, so beyond he bought more than some arbitrary limit during some arbitrary time period, what provides the basis for such a heavy handed visit as displayed in this video? This isn't Andy Taylor knocking on the door with Barney Fife watching his back, these are guys in vests and clearly operating as if the guy is a suspected criminal simply because he engaged in a lawful activity.

---

In their defense, they can't know if his activity is lawful or not before they actually talk to him. Until he opens the door, he could be a violent meth dealer for all they know.

Now, they should have a warrant, and simply buying a bunch of guns should not be grounds for said warrant, but they do have the right to ask without said warrant and be prepared for unknown individuals while asking.

---

I get why they have assumed the posture witnessed in the video, but up to this point they seem to have no evidence of his engaging in wrong doing other than lawfully purchasing a number of firearms. I suppose one could compare this to someone buying 5 boxes of Sudafed in a 48-hour period, but if the guy has no priors (unless something about the traffic stop indicated additional caution), and passed NICS, that should count for something. While caution is a good thing, there may be something about coming in heavy that also invites a more confrontational and adversarial interaction that should be considered.

---

The Vegas shooter had no priors and passed NICS (along with plenty of others who went on to kill people), and cops have been killed doing things as mundane as serving eviction notices.

On duty, they're probably required to be armed, so it's not like they have choice. If they're going to ask someone about a potential illegal fun purchase, a vest is just prudent, and might even be policy.

The thing to remember is that you need to view their actions in the context of any interaction, not just this interaction where you know the outcome and the guy on the other side of the door.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Dawnguard said:

---

MousepadMarauder said:

---

I haven't read the entire thread and don't know the backstory, but just wanted to enter this as a possible explanation:

A gun gets used in the commission of a crime. The gun gets traced back as sold by the manufacturer to/through a certain FFL, these guys show up at his shop and demand to inspect his records (he has to comply). In inspecting his records, they notice this gun was sold to Person A, along with a whole host of other guns. Person A is not an FFL but is apparently selling guns including selling guns to original criminal actor. This is a violation of Federal Law, selling for business without a license. ATF thinks FFL is in violation of Federal Law for knowingly transferring guns which he had reason to know were going to be sold (straw purchase or otherwise). In looking at FFL's records they also notice Person B (Ring Camera Guy) is acquiring voluminous weapons as well. In order to build case against FFL and/or Person A, ATF goes to talk to all folks who bought multiple firearms through FFL.

Agreed that I don't want ATF showing up at my door asking about my guns, but I think there are scenarios where this might happen as a result of good law enforcement activity.

---

And if this was the case, getting a warrant would make a lot more sense than a knock and talk for ensuring that all of the evidence was collected correctly and avoiding additional misunderstandings while also making it appear as legitimate instead of bullying.

---

It's easier and quicker to just ask first. If your neighbor of blocking your driveway, you could just call the cops and a tow truck, or you could walk over and ask them to move first. If you ask, it might get resolved quicker. If they say no, you can always do things the hard way.

Now, these guys should leave the moment the owner tells them no instead of trying to coerce compliance, but there's really nothing wrong with asking before going the warrant route.

That said, I really don't have a high opinion of cops in general. I'm not making excuses for anything they have done here or elsewhere, and I've posted many, many times about my belief they should be held far more accountable. However, they have a job to do, and like anyone else I would hope they try the easiest and last intrusive option first, because what's worse than cops showing up at your house without a warrant and asking to verify possession of a few weapons is cops breaking down your door at 3am with, and under the protection of, a warrant to search for said weapons.

---

yes but in this case since they had to gather paperwork ahead of time, would it not have been simple to get a warrant to see the guns in question if any true probable cause existed? If the cops happened to be in the area already then I would agree, not harm in asking first, but that's not the case here. They got a notice from a computer system and had to assemble their stuff and go specifically to this house for this specific purpose. Showing up with a warrant to me shows more respect as it shows genuine cause to do this check, and not a power trip induced attempted overreach by a law enforcement agency.

and to the compliance piece, the 3 am no knock shouldn't really be a concern here as normal warrants are supposed to be knock-and-announce and in daylight hours. And destruction of evidence is hardly a concern here as the legal problems arise only in the absence of the evidence in question, so a no knock shouldn't ever be granted in this specific case.

generally speaking, this type of behavior is the type of thing that causes even the generally law abiding citizens to distrust police.

MousepadMarauder said:

---

I haven't read the entire thread and don't know the backstory, but just wanted to enter this as a possible explanation:

A gun gets used in the commission of a crime. The gun gets traced back as sold by the manufacturer to/through a certain FFL, these guys show up at his shop and demand to inspect his records (he has to comply). In inspecting his records, they notice this gun was sold to Person A, along with a whole host of other guns. Person A is not an FFL but is apparently selling guns including selling guns to original criminal actor. This is a violation of Federal Law, selling for business without a license. ATF thinks FFL is in violation of Federal Law for knowingly transferring guns which he had reason to know were going to be sold (straw purchase or otherwise). In looking at FFL's records they also notice Person B (Ring Camera Guy) is acquiring voluminous weapons as well. In order to build case against FFL and/or Person A, ATF goes to talk to all folks who bought multiple firearms through FFL.

Agreed that I don't want ATF showing up at my door asking about my guns, but I think there are scenarios where this might happen as a result of good law enforcement activity.

---

If the agent his real cause he can get a warrant for searching the premises to help build his case. If not, he can f*** off.

So realistically what happens if your tell them to come back with a warrant, then wish them a good day, and close your door?

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Dawnguard said:

---

MousepadMarauder said:

---

I haven't read the entire thread and don't know the backstory, but just wanted to enter this as a possible explanation:

A gun gets used in the commission of a crime. The gun gets traced back as sold by the manufacturer to/through a certain FFL, these guys show up at his shop and demand to inspect his records (he has to comply). In inspecting his records, they notice this gun was sold to Person A, along with a whole host of other guns. Person A is not an FFL but is apparently selling guns including selling guns to original criminal actor. This is a violation of Federal Law, selling for business without a license. ATF thinks FFL is in violation of Federal Law for knowingly transferring guns which he had reason to know were going to be sold (straw purchase or otherwise). In looking at FFL's records they also notice Person B (Ring Camera Guy) is acquiring voluminous weapons as well. In order to build case against FFL and/or Person A, ATF goes to talk to all folks who bought multiple firearms through FFL.

Agreed that I don't want ATF showing up at my door asking about my guns, but I think there are scenarios where this might happen as a result of good law enforcement activity.

---

And if this was the case, getting a warrant would make a lot more sense than a knock and talk for ensuring that all of the evidence was collected correctly and avoiding additional misunderstandings while also making it appear as legitimate instead of bullying.

---

It's easier and quicker to just ask first. If your neighbor of blocking your driveway, you could just call the cops and a tow truck, or you could walk over and ask them to move first. If you ask, it might get resolved quicker. If they say no, you can always do things the hard way.

Now, these guys should leave the moment the owner tells them no instead of trying to coerce compliance, but there's really nothing wrong with asking before going the warrant route.

That said, I really don't have a high opinion of cops in general. I'm not making excuses for anything they have done here or elsewhere, and I've posted many, many times about my belief they should be held far more accountable. However, they have a job to do, and like anyone else I would hope they try the easiest and last intrusive option first, because what's worse than cops showing up at your house without a warrant and asking to verify possession of a few weapons is cops breaking down your door at 3am with, and under the protection of, a warrant to search for said weapons.

---

yes but in this case since they had to gather paperwork ahead of time, would it not have been simple to get a warrant to see the guns in question if any true probable cause existed? If the cops happened to be in the area already then I would agree, not harm in asking first, but that's not the case here. They got a notice from a computer system and had to assemble their stuff and go specifically to this house for this specific purpose. Showing up with a warrant to me shows more respect as it shows genuine cause to do this check, and not a power trip induced attempted overreach by a law enforcement agency.

and to the compliance piece, the 3 am no knock shouldn't really be a concern here as normal warrants are supposed to be knock-and-announce and in daylight hours. And destruction of evidence is hardly a concern here as the legal problems arise only in the absence of the evidence in question, so a no knock shouldn't ever be granted in this specific case.

generally speaking, this type of behavior is the type of thing that causes even the generally law abiding citizens to distrust police.

---

There is certainly extra work to get a warrant. They'd have to do more research on him, put together evidence to go before a judge, and then make their case. As it is, they just have a printout of what he bought and go ask.

No-knocks are overused and are not used solely for evidence preservation. They could attempt to justify one because they're going to look for a bunch of guns and he's suspected to be armed. There's a half decent chance they ask for and receive it. I'd prefer they knock, ask, and come back later.

ETA It's not this behavior that makes law abiding people distrust police. It's the lying, fabricating probable cause in traffic stops, excessive use of force, and general lack of accountability that makes people distrust police.

Cromagnum said:

---

So realistically what happens if your tell them to come back with a warrant, then wish them a good day, and close your door?

---

They either go get one and come back or they're denied and move on.

I'll tell you what would happen after they left. I'd have those firearms relocated. I'd have them all relocated. In fact, I'd go purchase a storage unit using my credit card and then either have a camera in there or rig it so I knew someone had gone inside (don't actually store the weapons there). I'd wanna see how far they would go.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

The ultimate irony would be if the guy had been doing a straw purchase.

He now knows the ATF has him on their radar, so he will be more careful in the future.

If he still had the guns, he could show them to ATF, then as soon as they left, pass them on to the illegal buyers, knowing he was in the clear.

Good job, ATF! Your visit only had one of two outcomes:

1) Harass a legal gun buyer

2) Give aid and comfort to an illegal buyer.


Brilliant!

---

That's government in a nutshell

IndividualFreedom said:

---

I'll tell you what would happen after they left. I'd have those firearms relocated. I'd have them all relocated. In fact, I'd go purchase a storage unit using my credit card and then either have a camera in there or rig it so I knew someone had gone inside (don't actually store the weapons there). I'd wanna see how far they would go.

---

Seems like that would open the door for questions about where the guns they know you have are now.

"Hello Officer, shall not be infringed is pretty clear English. Please leave my property, and have a wonderful day. Be safe out there."

deddog said:

---

That's government in a nutshell

---

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.

=Milton Friedman

I think I would rather have them see the guns I bring out to show them over having them rifle through my safe and take a full inventory.

hunter2012 said:

---

Simple response to that.

"Go get a warrant, I'm calling my lawyer, and no I will not open the safe for you without my lawyer's say-so."

---

Or even more succinctly, no thank you, have a good day close door.

gotsand said:

---

I think I would rather have them see the guns I bring out to show them over having them rifle through my safe and take a full inventory.

---

Ahhh yes...the old "if you don't have anything to hide, why worry?" mentality.

That's great..until the feds magically "find" something and you end up spending your life savings defending yourself against made up charges that you have to prove your innocence to versus the other way around. Because that is how the ATF works.

fasthorse05 said:

---

I just naturally assumed it was someone using a Red Flag law, which is what will always happen.

The fact that someone purchased a gun, or several, and the ATF just randomly shows up, is to be expected from our Dem overlords. What's really funny is the ignorant fools on the Left are so happy and genuinely believe nothing like that could ever happen to them.

Maybe not with guns, but everything else is fair game. What fools who can't think beyond their emotions.

---

If this was subject to a Red Flag law, the cop would have a court order mandating seizure of the guns.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Dawnguard said:

---

MousepadMarauder said:

---

I haven't read the entire thread and don't know the backstory, but just wanted to enter this as a possible explanation:

A gun gets used in the commission of a crime. The gun gets traced back as sold by the manufacturer to/through a certain FFL, these guys show up at his shop and demand to inspect his records (he has to comply). In inspecting his records, they notice this gun was sold to Person A, along with a whole host of other guns. Person A is not an FFL but is apparently selling guns including selling guns to original criminal actor. This is a violation of Federal Law, selling for business without a license. ATF thinks FFL is in violation of Federal Law for knowingly transferring guns which he had reason to know were going to be sold (straw purchase or otherwise). In looking at FFL's records they also notice Person B (Ring Camera Guy) is acquiring voluminous weapons as well. In order to build case against FFL and/or Person A, ATF goes to talk to all folks who bought multiple firearms through FFL.

Agreed that I don't want ATF showing up at my door asking about my guns, but I think there are scenarios where this might happen as a result of good law enforcement activity.

---

And if this was the case, getting a warrant would make a lot more sense than a knock and talk for ensuring that all of the evidence was collected correctly and avoiding additional misunderstandings while also making it appear as legitimate instead of bullying.

---

It's easier and quicker to just ask first. If your neighbor of blocking your driveway, you could just call the cops and a tow truck, or you could walk over and ask them to move first. If you ask, it might get resolved quicker. If they say no, you can always do things the hard way.

Now, these guys should leave the moment the owner tells them no instead of trying to coerce compliance, but there's really nothing wrong with asking before going the warrant route.

That said, I really don't have a high opinion of cops in general. I'm not making excuses for anything they have done here or elsewhere, and I've posted many, many times about my belief they should be held far more accountable. However, they have a job to do, and like anyone else I would hope they try the easiest and last intrusive option first, because what's worse than cops showing up at your house without a warrant and asking to verify possession of a few weapons is cops breaking down your door at 3am with, and under the protection of, a warrant to search for said weapons.

---

yes but in this case since they had to gather paperwork ahead of time, would it not have been simple to get a warrant to see the guns in question if any true probable cause existed? If the cops happened to be in the area already then I would agree, not harm in asking first, but that's not the case here. They got a notice from a computer system and had to assemble their stuff and go specifically to this house for this specific purpose. Showing up with a warrant to me shows more respect as it shows genuine cause to do this check, and not a power trip induced attempted overreach by a law enforcement agency.

and to the compliance piece, the 3 am no knock shouldn't really be a concern here as normal warrants are supposed to be knock-and-announce and in daylight hours. And destruction of evidence is hardly a concern here as the legal problems arise only in the absence of the evidence in question, so a no knock shouldn't ever be granted in this specific case.

generally speaking, this type of behavior is the type of thing that causes even the generally law abiding citizens to distrust police.

---

There is certainly extra work to get a warrant. They'd have to do more research on him, put together evidence to go before a judge, and then make their case. As it is, they just have a printout of what he bought and go ask.

No-knocks are overused and are not used solely for evidence preservation. They could attempt to justify one because they're going to look for a bunch of guns and he's suspected to be armed. There's a half decent chance they ask for and receive it. I'd prefer they knock, ask, and come back later.

ETA It's not this behavior that makes law abiding people distrust police. It's the lying, fabricating probable cause in traffic stops, excessive use of force, and general lack of accountability that makes people distrust police.

---

This is the ATF, not the local sheriff. That essentially means that the investigators are supposed to be primarily tasked, trained, and focused on a narrow field of violations and have the resources and connections readily available to just hand a piece of paper to a judge and get approval if there is probable cause.

Second: in a case outlined by the hypothetical above, a 3am raid shouldn't be justified. If they felt comfortable enough to knock on the door and ask, then breaking a door down for executing a search warrant shouldn't need to happen.

Third: congratulations to the ATF. By /not/ getting a warrant, they come across as thugs, decrease public perception, and with social media, have now tipped off anyone who knows this guy that the ATF is investigating. Massive spoilage of evidence problems.


The risk reward just isn't there, ESPECIALLY because this is the ATF and not just the local Andy Griffith making sure everything is ok. The more likely case is that they don't have enough for a search warrant and it's pure fishing and bullying - which is why the conservatives are becoming significantly more resistant to police than they were even a decade ago.

There was a state trooper there as well.

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

FeDs DoN'T hAvE a LiSt oF aLL gUn OwNeRs

---

They do when you post all the photos on your social media.

BCR said:

---

It is crazy they show up in force armed with vest on to ask questions. There has to be more to this.

---

DIng
Ding
Ding

While ATF shouldn't have been there in the first place, once the owner admitted the guns were in his safe they should have left and said thanks for his time.

Dawnguard said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Dawnguard said:

---

MousepadMarauder said:

---

I haven't read the entire thread and don't know the backstory, but just wanted to enter this as a possible explanation:

A gun gets used in the commission of a crime. The gun gets traced back as sold by the manufacturer to/through a certain FFL, these guys show up at his shop and demand to inspect his records (he has to comply). In inspecting his records, they notice this gun was sold to Person A, along with a whole host of other guns. Person A is not an FFL but is apparently selling guns including selling guns to original criminal actor. This is a violation of Federal Law, selling for business without a license. ATF thinks FFL is in violation of Federal Law for knowingly transferring guns which he had reason to know were going to be sold (straw purchase or otherwise). In looking at FFL's records they also notice Person B (Ring Camera Guy) is acquiring voluminous weapons as well. In order to build case against FFL and/or Person A, ATF goes to talk to all folks who bought multiple firearms through FFL.

Agreed that I don't want ATF showing up at my door asking about my guns, but I think there are scenarios where this might happen as a result of good law enforcement activity.

---

And if this was the case, getting a warrant would make a lot more sense than a knock and talk for ensuring that all of the evidence was collected correctly and avoiding additional misunderstandings while also making it appear as legitimate instead of bullying.

---

It's easier and quicker to just ask first. If your neighbor of blocking your driveway, you could just call the cops and a tow truck, or you could walk over and ask them to move first. If you ask, it might get resolved quicker. If they say no, you can always do things the hard way.

Now, these guys should leave the moment the owner tells them no instead of trying to coerce compliance, but there's really nothing wrong with asking before going the warrant route.

That said, I really don't have a high opinion of cops in general. I'm not making excuses for anything they have done here or elsewhere, and I've posted many, many times about my belief they should be held far more accountable. However, they have a job to do, and like anyone else I would hope they try the easiest and last intrusive option first, because what's worse than cops showing up at your house without a warrant and asking to verify possession of a few weapons is cops breaking down your door at 3am with, and under the protection of, a warrant to search for said weapons.

---

yes but in this case since they had to gather paperwork ahead of time, would it not have been simple to get a warrant to see the guns in question if any true probable cause existed? If the cops happened to be in the area already then I would agree, not harm in asking first, but that's not the case here. They got a notice from a computer system and had to assemble their stuff and go specifically to this house for this specific purpose. Showing up with a warrant to me shows more respect as it shows genuine cause to do this check, and not a power trip induced attempted overreach by a law enforcement agency.

and to the compliance piece, the 3 am no knock shouldn't really be a concern here as normal warrants are supposed to be knock-and-announce and in daylight hours. And destruction of evidence is hardly a concern here as the legal problems arise only in the absence of the evidence in question, so a no knock shouldn't ever be granted in this specific case.

generally speaking, this type of behavior is the type of thing that causes even the generally law abiding citizens to distrust police.

---

There is certainly extra work to get a warrant. They'd have to do more research on him, put together evidence to go before a judge, and then make their case. As it is, they just have a printout of what he bought and go ask.

No-knocks are overused and are not used solely for evidence preservation. They could attempt to justify one because they're going to look for a bunch of guns and he's suspected to be armed. There's a half decent chance they ask for and receive it. I'd prefer they knock, ask, and come back later.

ETA It's not this behavior that makes law abiding people distrust police. It's the lying, fabricating probable cause in traffic stops, excessive use of force, and general lack of accountability that makes people distrust police.

---

This is the ATF, not the local sheriff. That essentially means that the investigators are supposed to be primarily tasked, trained, and focused on a narrow field of violations and have the resources and connections readily available to just hand a piece of paper to a judge and get approval if there is probable cause.

Second: in a case outlined by the hypothetical above, a 3am raid shouldn't be justified. If they felt comfortable enough to knock on the door and ask, then breaking a door down for executing a search warrant shouldn't need to happen.

Third: congratulations to the ATF. By /not/ getting a warrant, they come across as thugs, decrease public perception, and with social media, have now tipped off anyone who knows this guy that the ATF is investigating. Massive spoilage of evidence problems.


The risk reward just isn't there, ESPECIALLY because this is the ATF and not just the local Andy Griffith making sure everything is ok. The more likely case is that they don't have enough for a search warrant and it's pure fishing and bullying - which is why the conservatives are becoming significantly more resistant to police than they were even a decade ago.

---

exactly! i support the police and will generally give a pretty large benefit of the doubt, but if you show up to my house on a fishing trip when you clearly had time to get a warrant if you had actual cause to be there, then you are using your position of authority in an attempt to gain access to more info than you are legally entitled to. you are no longer my friend trying to keep my community safe, you are now my adversary.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

FTAG 2000I think there's a rule that if you buy more than five firearms in 48 hours you could get a visit from ATF. this guy bought seven.

Not a fan of the ATF but it's understandable why he got visited.
If it's a rule, then the rule should stipulate that a judge be notified to authorize a warrant for the search and confirmation. The guy passed the NICS background check, twice in this case it would seem, so beyond he bought more than some arbitrary limit during some arbitrary time period, what provides the basis for such a heavy handed visit as displayed in this video? This isn't Andy Taylor knocking on the door with Barney Fife watching his back, these are guys in vests and clearly operating as if the guy is a suspected criminal simply because he engaged in a lawful activity.

---

In their defense, they can't know if his activity is lawful or not before they actually talk to him. Until he opens the door, he could be a violent meth dealer for all they know.

Now, they should have a warrant, and simply buying a bunch of guns should not be grounds for said warrant, but they do have the right to ask without said warrant and be prepared for unknown individuals while asking.

---

I get why they have assumed the posture witnessed in the video, but up to this point they seem to have no evidence of his engaging in wrong doing other than lawfully purchasing a number of firearms. I suppose one could compare this to someone buying 5 boxes of Sudafed in a 48-hour period, but if the guy has no priors (unless something about the traffic stop indicated additional caution), and passed NICS, that should count for something. While caution is a good thing, there may be something about coming in heavy that also invites a more confrontational and adversarial interaction that should be considered.

---

The Vegas shooter had no priors and passed NICS (along with plenty of others who went on to kill people), and cops have been killed doing things as mundane as serving eviction notices.

On duty, they're probably required to be armed, so it's not like they have choice. If they're going to ask someone about a potential illegal fun purchase, a vest is just prudent, and might even be policy.

The thing to remember is that you need to view their actions in the context of any interaction, not just this interaction where you know the outcome and the guy on the other side of the door.

---

I understand their position, but my overall point is that many of the bad shootings in recent years have involved officers showing up to an innocent person's home, that person not fully understanding the situation, interpreting their posture as hostile, and the situation escalating to tragedy. Our overuse of SWAT for serving almost every warrant, no knock raids, etc. have not aided in building trust between police and the citizens they are sworn to protect and serve.

In this case, for example, unless they had sufficient grounds to think this another Ruby Ridge or Branch Davidian situation, since by their own admission he had nothing to worry about, why not first call the residence, note that his purchase triggered a verification, and when he replied "yeah, they are in my safe," replied with a "great, we will have an officer at your door in 10 minutes to verify serial numbers, please have the weapons unloaded, and ready for verification" and pay attention to any noticeable stress levels in the guy's voice to determine how many officers needed to visibly approach the house, with additional officers close by but out of sight?

As a lifelong supporter of law enforcement, I now consider them my adversary. Thanks, Democrats.

IndividualFreedom said:

---

I'll tell you what would happen after they left. I'd have those firearms relocated. I'd have them all relocated. In fact, I'd go purchase a storage unit using my credit card and then either have a camera in there or rig it so I knew someone had gone inside (don't actually store the weapons there). I'd wanna see how far they would go.

---

Seems like the worst thing you could do. If they come back wit a warrant, THEN you show them the guns and that should be that. However if you don't produce the guns and are evasive about the location, well then all sorts of red flags start going off. They'll come back with another warrant and tear up your entire house.

Quote:

---

The ATF defended itself in a statement to The Washington Times, saying the agents' actions were "entirely appropriate."

"We are unable to comment on the details of any ongoing investigations; however, interviews are an entirely appropriate part of the investigative process for any law enforcement agency."

---

Since when did an interview consist of asking a citizen in his own home to bring his guns out to show the serial numbers?

ETA - so there's still an ongoing investigation into this citizen?

ATF is absolute garbage. DeSantis should disband them his first hour in office.

it is none of the govt's business where the 2A material is. If they come looking for them then I tell them I relocated them. When they ask where to, they get NUNYA. Now arrest me or get out.

torrid said:

---

IndividualFreedom said:

---

I'll tell you what would happen after they left. I'd have those firearms relocated. I'd have them all relocated. In fact, I'd go purchase a storage unit using my credit card and then either have a camera in there or rig it so I knew someone had gone inside (don't actually store the weapons there). I'd wanna see how far they would go.

---

Seems like the worst thing you could do. If they come back wit a warrant, THEN you show them the guns and that should be that. However if you don't produce the guns and are evasive about the location, well then all sorts of red flags start going off. They'll come back with another warrant and tear up your entire house.

---

In the state of Texas the storage facility can and will provide access for LEO/FBI if a warrant is presented for that tenants name and address on file. The facility must then provide notification to the tenant immediately notifying them that access was gained or granted. (Paragraph 19 of your TSSA lease)

So, he's going to know if the FBI looked in his storage unit possibly providing time for him to make other arrangements.

Paragraph 18 covers reasons the lessor can enter the tenants unit, no warrant is needed, just reasonable belief of an emergency, of which there are plenty. One of those is suspicion of imminent danger of explosives, including ammunition. Then see Paragraph 24 for what that can result in.

In other words, the storage unit may or may not be worth any effort to you.